Yeah. I saw that news too. Hope it's not the battery because the fire seem to come out from bottom.....

Maybe it affect the stock either? TSLA down ~4% now.

Anyone has more information?

GDH | 2013/10/02 - 11:37

Damn that was horrible. Cars catch fire all the time though so I am not worried.

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 11:46

It's amazing how little can be found on the web about this fire.

I agree that cars catch fire regularly; however, it's quite rare for them to be new cars... especially if the new car does not have fuel, engine oil, or a hot exhaust system. Most car fires start in the engine compartment (hence the firewall). I am really interested to get more details here. Was it an accident? Was something flammable in the frunk? If electrical, what component was the cause? I'm sure there are many explanations, but I will sleep better once we know the actual cause.

Please post if anyone finds more info.

tomkist | 2013/10/02 - 12:10

It looks like there's some spillage, as the fire is spread a number of feet beyond the car. Melted, flowing battery? Tires melted into a film? I know nothing about car fires. Anyone know what it might be?

The most telling item is the shredded metal of the hood. No electrical fire would do that. My vote is on something explosive in the frunk, specifically a leaking gas canister that found a spark.

oildeathspiral | 2013/10/02 - 12:32

Can't verify the accuracy of this post on the Yahoo MB but fwiw:

"TSLA debunked "fire" cover your shorts
Yesterday, a Model S collided with a large object in the middle of the road, causing significant damage to the vehicle. The car’s alert system signaled a problem and instructed the driver to pull over safely, which he did. No one was injured, and the sole occupant had sufficient time to exit the vehicle safely and call the authorities. Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack. All indications are that the fire never entered the interior cabin of the car. It was extinguished on-site by the fire department.
To recap:
· The incident was NOT spontaneous and the incident was contained with the vehicle safety systems performing as designed.
· The sole occupant had ample time to pull over, exit the vehicle, contact authorities and no one was hurt.
· Over the past fifteen months Model S vehicles have been driven 83 million miles, and involved in a dozen accidents, with only a singular incident – rather typical for the auto industry.
· While Tesla does not provide updates on vehicle order flow – we expect to be asked for an update on order rates and any impact from this incident on our Q3’13 earnings call. tsla investor relations"

GeekEV | 2013/10/02 - 12:35

Update from Tesla posted to the article:

“Yesterday, a Model S collided with a large metallic object in the middle of the road, causing significant damage to the vehicle. The car’s alert system signaled a problem and instructed the driver to pull over safely, which he did. No one was injured, and the sole occupant had sufficient time to exit the vehicle safely and call the authorities. Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack. All indications are that the fire never entered the interior cabin of the car. It was extinguished on-site by the fire department.”

That almost sounds like the fire was caused by sparks from the metallic object being dragged along the road. Perhaps catching the felt wheel well liners on fire. That does seem to be where the flames are coming from.

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 12:36

That same statement was added as an update to the original Jalopnik article as well, so it seems like an official Tesla response.

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 12:36

GeekEV beat me to it.

fbramble | 2013/10/02 - 12:37

“Yesterday, a Model S collided with a large metallic object in the middle of the road, causing significant damage to the vehicle. The car’s alert system signaled a problem and instructed the driver to pull over safely, which he did. No one was injured, and the sole occupant had sufficient time to exit the vehicle safely and call the authorities. Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack. All indications are that the fire never entered the interior cabin of the car. It was extinguished on-site by the fire department.”

portia | 2013/10/02 - 12:39

I don't see what Regen setting in the Forbes article has to do with anything?
If you scroll down and expand the update, you will see this quote from Tesla,

“Yesterday, a Model S collided with a large metallic object in the middle of the road, causing significant damage to the vehicle. The car’s alert system signaled a problem and instructed the driver to pull over safely, which he did. No one was injured, and the sole occupant had sufficient time to exit the vehicle safely and call the authorities. Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack. All indications are that the fire never entered the interior cabin of the car. It was extinguished on-site by the fire department.”

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 12:39

@GeekEV: I don't think that dragging the metallic object would signal the car to a problem. My bet is that the large metallic object punctured the battery pack, and the cooling system was rendered useless. The good news is that all safety systems and alerts worked as planned.

eepic | 2013/10/02 - 12:40

@Andrew_OH_Tesla
That article is a few weeks old and doesn't provide any information on this mysterious fire. Tesla has stated that no production battery to date has ever caught fire, not even the ones used in crash testing.

Looking at the pictures and video, the fire seems to be limited to the front of the car and may not be related to the main battery pack in the floor of the car. Possible causes could be (pure speculation on my part) :
- The 12V lead-acid battery (the one similar to most ICE cars)
- Electronics/wiring, there was that Roadster recall years ago citing a fire hazard
- Something flammable in the frunk

Contrary to the headline, I'm actually glad to see the battery not explode and/or proceed on a self-propagating thermal runaway despite being in a roaring fire. The passive coolant 'goo' design seems to be working well.

GeekEV | 2013/10/02 - 12:45

@Longhorn92 - No, but a fire probably would! Look at the pictures and the title frame used for the video. All coming from the wheels... But then again, that's probably the only point where the flames really could exit.

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 12:45

@eepic: read the post before yours. Tesla has stated that it was a large metallic object in the road that cause the problem. It was likely a battery pack fire caused by a breach from the metallic object.

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 12:45

I meant posts.

eepic | 2013/10/02 - 12:46

Well it looks like the explanation came out as I was typing. Glad to hear the driver was safe despite a nasty accident!

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 12:49

@GeekEV: good point, but I agree that they likely designed the car such that any fire would be lead away from the cabin.

However, I still bet on the battery pack breach. I think Tesla would have stated in their release that the battery pack never caught fire if it didn't.

eepic | 2013/10/02 - 12:49

@Longhorn92 Yea between the time I opened the thread, read the posts, and typed my response I was already way behind, guess I'm just slow =T

Longhorn92 | 2013/10/02 - 12:50

More proof positive that this car is a tank, especially if the fire never entered the cabin as they seem to think.

Whity - interesting twist. Although I doubt the fire was intentional you have come up with a creative theory.

GeekEV | 2013/10/02 - 13:08

@Whity - LOL

@Longhorn92 - Possibly, that would be my next guess. But given the way the pack is designed (there's a great thread on it over at the TMC site) it seems unlikely that penetration of the pack would result in fire.